JUDGMENT 4.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by Opposite parties is directed against the order dated 16.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.37 of 2010 of respondent/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and appellants were directed to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.41,500/- after deducting Rs.1000/- as processing fee and other charges besides compensation of Rs.25000/- for harassment etc. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that pursuant to his selection in M.E. Degree Course in OP College on 23.7.2009 complainant deposited a sum of Rs.33,000/- as fee of the college and Rs.25,500/- as fee of the Hostel. Simultaneously he had applied for the same degree in the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorke and during counseling on 27.7.2009 he was also selected there, so he preferred to join that institute and therefore, deposited necessary fee with IIT, Roorke on that very date. The complainant then requested OPs to return his documents and refund the entire fee and after great persuasion OP College retuned the documents and refunded only Rs.17,000/-. He wrote to OP College that since he had not attended any class and as such had not availed their services, so his balance fee of Rs.41,500/- should also be refunded, but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the complainant after getting admission in the said course on 23.7.2009 vacated his seat on 31.7.2009 whereas the last cut off date for admission/operation of waiting list for admission to the M.E. Course was 24.7.2009 and accordingly after 31.7.2009 no admission against the seat vacated by the complainant could be made and therefore the seat remained vacant and no eligible student could be admitted after the cut off date. It was pleaded that as per refund rules of the OP College as appeared at Page No.11 of the admission brochure-AnnexureR-1, the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.17,000/-only and not to 58,500/- as he did not join the course and applied for cancellation of admission/refund only after the last cut off date for admission which was over on 24.7.2009. The refundable amount of Rs.17000/- had been refunded to the complainant, so he was not entitled to the balance amount of Rs.41,500/-. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants/OPs is that the university had closed all admissions to the ME course on 24.7.2009 after the date fixed for operating the waiting list against the vacant seats as per stipulation in the admission brochure and the classes for the course had started on 30.7.2009. The complainant moved application dated 31.7.2009 seeking cancellation of his admission and refund of Rs.58500/- whereas the admissions were finalized and closed on 24.7.2009 and as such the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant for the entire course of two years. The learned counsel for OPs further submitted that as per UGC instructions the fee was to be refunded only if the seat vacated by the student was filled in the subsequent counseling by operating the waiting list but in the instant case as the cut off date for admission was 24.7.2009 and complainant had withdrawn from the course on his own accord and applied for cancellation of seat on 31.7.2009,so there being no provision for further counseling and operation of waiting list, so said seat remained vacant throughout the course. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the following authorities ; (i) Sonika Sharma Vs Dashmesh Girls college and Anr 2010(1)CPC 559 (ii) Gitika Kapoor Vs Gugranawala Guru Nanak Institute of Management & Technology 2009(1)CPC 31. (iii)Apeejay Institute of Management and Information Technology 2009(1)CPC213 On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant tried his level best to repel the aforesaid arguments. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and find that according to the schedule of ME Admissions for the Session 2009-2010 as mentioned in the brochure a copy of which is available on the complaint file, the date of counseling was 23.7.2009 and date of operation of waiting list was mentioned to be 24.7.2009 whereas the complainant surrendered his seat on 31.7.2009. Further, Dr.Ashwani Kumar, Registrar of OPs has given his affidavit that there were 25 sanctioned seats for the course which were filled during the counseling held on 23/24.7.2009 and the seat vacated by the complainant on 31.7.2009 could not be refilled and remained vacant throughout the course of the ME programme comprising of two years. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had also sought information vide his application dated 26.7.2010 under RTI Act-2005 from the OPs about the filling of seat vacated by him and he was given reply vide letter dated 12.8.2010 mentioning therein that as per the ME Admission Brochure for the year 2009-2010 there was no provision to fill up any vacant seat after 24.7.2009 which was last date of counseling. In the absence of any evidence/document to the contrary, we are of the view that as the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the session, so he was not entitled to refund of entire admission fee. 7. Thus, the seat vacated by complainant remained vacant throughout the entire course and further he had left the college voluntarily, so he is not entitled to refund of entire admission fee. In this context reference may be made to the Public Notice dated 23.4.2007 issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, the relevant abstract of which reads as under ; ““The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.” 8. In the instant case, admittedly the OP college had refunded Rs.17,000/- as per its Refund Rules but no detail of the said amount has been given by OP. The complainant had applied for refund within 15 days from the date of offer of admission, so according to clauses 2 & 4 of the Refund Rules the complainant was entitled to Rs.5000/- as refundable deposit + Rs.5000/- as semester fee . As the complainant had not availed hostel facility so the charges received by OP college on that count are refundable because the hostel accommodation could be allotted to some other student. In this way, the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.35,500/- ( Rs.5000/- as refundable deposit+ Rs.5000/- as semester fee +Rs.25500/- as hostel charges). Out of the said amount Rs.17,000/- had already been refunded. Thus, complainant is entitled to refund of remaining amount of Rs.17,500/-. Since we are accepting this appeal partly, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances no justification is made out for awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Thus, direction made by the District Forum in that regard is set aside. 9. In view of the above discussion , we allow the appeal partly and direct OPs to refund to the complainant remaining amount of Rs.17500/- to the complainant within thirty days from the date copy of the order is received, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of filing the appeal till actual realization. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
